Category: Other Opposing Worldview

Kevin DeYoung … Also Clueless When it Comes to Nationalism

“Is this (the conclusions in Stephen Wolfe’s book) really the direction we’re to be pushed by the gospel? Are we really to pursue a social ordering on earth so different from that which is present in heaven? Are we really so sure that our love for people like us and our ostracism of people unlike us are God-given inclinations and not fallen ones?”

Rev. Dr. Kevin DeYoung
PCA “Clergy” 

1.) If Jesus is the Gospel than I’d say that, “yes” Wolfe’s book is really the direction we’re to be pushed to the Gospel;22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This passage teaches the great grace of the Lord Christ to all men. It teaches the necessity to be importunate in prayer. It teaches the centrality of faith. And by today’s standard among the “clergy” and the Church in the West it demonstrates that Jesus was a racist and that He understood the idea of properly ordered affections. Keep in mind that “dogs” is a pejorative term that is not loaded with any expression of kindness.  

2.) DeYoung misreads the book of Revelation thinking that Revelation teaches that Heaven is an amalgamationist paradise, when in point of fact the book of Revelation teaches that the Saints are present in the New Jerusalem as belonging to their Nations (See Rev. 21).

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

The New Jerusalem is not inhabited by atomistic individuals but by people as still belonging to their respective nations. Heaven is inhabited by the Church as that Church belonged to their respective nations. Thus, the New Jerusalem finds nations remaining yet distinct, yet together united in their worship of the great and magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. This is the concept of the One and the Many incarnated into the Church in the New Jerusalem.

DeYoung’s ham-fisted reading of Scripture, interpreting it to be a place where “all colors bleed into one” is irresponsible, and in this climate, criminal exegesis.

3.) I’d love to see a quote from Wolfe’s book where he is insisting that we need to ostracize people unlike us. Am I ostracizing people when I spend my paycheck providing for my wife and family? Am I ostracizing other women when I don’t bed them while only bedding my wife?

The “Conservative” Guru of the PCA writes,

Likewise, Wolfe’s argument doesn’t reckon with the way the Bible relativizes our sense of family (Mark 3:31–35), tears down dividing walls between people groups (Eph. 2:11–22), and presents a multitribal and multilingual reality (and hoped-for future) as a heavenly good (Rev. 5:9–10).

1.) I dealt with DeYoung’s eisegesis in #2 above.

2.) Next, the Ephesians passage. I am working here to expose why DeYoung shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit;

The dividing wall in Ephesians is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a).

When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God as Gentiles. Gentiles don’t have to become religio-cultural Jews in order to become Christian.

 

Further, in Ephesians Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

 

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division that stood between Jew and Gentile in the Old Covenant was God’s will, not the by-product of human sin. “Racism,” (where it can genuinely be found) on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is the result of what God commands. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today you effectively turn God into a “racist.”

 

Third, did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one culture may prefer beer. Another culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first culture still likes beer and the second culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation, biology, and nature.

(Note: — The above 5 paragraphs were largely crafted by a chap who is now in hiding from the Stalinists cancel culture maniacs.)

Similarly Christ’s death did not remove the tendencies that belong to different ethnic peoples. Before Christ’s death Cretans were liars and gluttons. After Christ’s death Christian Cretans doubtless had to battle the besetting sin of lying and gluttony. The death of Christ does not destroy nature. For centuries McAtees have been hopelessly stubborn. I have been converted for decades now and a sinful stubbornness/defiance remains a besetting sin (ask my wife). The same is true for my children. It was true of my Father and it was true of his parents. This trait is in our genes. It is a characteristic long associated with the Scots. Peoples remain different, even after conversion. There is no sin in acknowledging that. Did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between ethnicities today? Not at all.

(Note: In the previous paragraph we see why contra Doug Wilson that race/ethnicity is not merely about skin.)

We have the words of an OT scholar Martin Wyngaarden that bears on this issue. Please Rev. Dr. DeYoung listen to Calvin Seminary Dr. Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19;

 

Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again;

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, THOUGH EACH REMAINS NATIONALLY DISTINCT.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. YET the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

3.) Now the Mark 3 passage

32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 DeYoung insists that the passage above relativizes our sense of family. I’d dearly like to hear DeYoung explain what he means by “relativizes.” If he simply means that the family can’t be raised above our union with Christ or that loyalty to family/people can’t rise above our loyalty to Christ who could ever argue? However, if “relativizes” means that family does not remain a priority, in its proper place, DeYoung has to deal with;

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Clearly, our Great Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, does not relativize family/people to the point that somehow they become eclipsed in our responsibilities to them.

Then there are the words of God that teach that family most certainly is not over relativized;

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

DeYoung and many like him are creating false dichotomies in order to avoid a Nationalism that is ethno by definition.

DeYoung is not a wise man on several matters. This is but one.

But why should he be the only clergy who is not wise in this regard?

I may have more in a future entry to say about DeYoungs misfiring in his analysis of Wolfe’s book.

No Quarter November meets Black Flag November; Contra Doug Wilson

I am going to fisk here a recent article by the maven of Moscow at his Blog & Meh-blog site. Allow me to first give some introductory comments.

In his column Doug finds the ability to ignore that the Christian White man is fighting being replaced in every place he dwells, yet despite that Doug writes column after column warning about Christian white people being guilty of racial vainglory.

I hope what I write here in response to Doug will provide Doug a little perspective.

For Doug, Christian white people wanting to survive and maintain their own place with love for their own people is racial vainglory.

In the end if Doug has so much more in common with Nigerian Anglican women then his white pagan neighbor let him move his whole CREC enterprise to Nigeria. I know they could use the help. Does Doug really think he is being a Christian witness to his white pagan neighbor by a back-door support of an enterprise that insures that his white pagan neighbor will have neither any place, or people to call his own, or any Christian witness to call him to Christ?

Doug exclaims that Kinists would build social orders where “one drop” legislation would be on the books and where everyone everywhere is examining one another’s woodpiles. What if instead, Kinists merely desired to see the nations of the West return to a time where the demographics favored their people and their faith? Come on Doug … you don’t really believe that the Kinists of the West are looking to measure the circumference of lips or cranium sizes or eye slant before we allow anyone to live in our social order do you?

You’re becoming disingenuous in the crafting of your arguments Doug. Does this mean your getting desperate?

Doug, in this article, seems to think that all because more than a few White people have fallen for cultural Marxism and WOKE that therefore proves that Kinism is not true. The argument seems to be; “White people are not special as seen by the numbers of them that have embraced WOKIE World.”

Kinists are happy to agree that there are all kinds of treasonous bastards and traitors in our midst. We spend most of our time fighting treasonous white people. People like, (hint — Guys who live in Moscow, Idaho who run their own Denominations).

Now for the fisking;

Doug Writes,

“When you get the point where you are agreeing with those who argue that the Nazis had their good points, then you either have cotton candy for brains, or a Mason jar full of sump pump water for a heart, or, given the times we live in, quite possibly both.”

Bret responds,

Ummm…. Er…. I do think the Nazis had their good point inasmuch as they killed Bolsheviks and presumably loved their Mothers.

I guess I’ll just have to live with the Bolshevik Pope of Moscow thinking that I have cotton candy for brains and a Mason jar full of sump pump water for a heart.

Oh the agony of Doug not having a high opinion of me.

Doug Wilson writes,

“And so, to all those in the ranks of the kinists who really were motivated by nothing more than your God-given natural affection . . . you are being snookered. The only thing you are demonstrating is how gullible a certain brand of white people can be. Some are trying to make you think that you are the radicals, the shock troops, the elite fighting units, a red-pilled brigade of Gurkhas. But I can assure you that the progressives would a thousand times more prefer to be fighting folks like you than fighting regular old conservative Christians, the kind whose grandfathers knew how to kick fascistobutt. You dabbling with demented reactionary memes is making life easy for them. So get out. Walk away. Repent. You think the need of the hour is for everybody to grow a spine, like you think you did, when what you really needed to do was to grow a brain.”

Bret responds,

Psst … don’t tell Doug but our Grandfathers were wrong for kicking fascistobutt. They should have let the fascistobutts and the bolshevikobutts kick each other’s obutts.

And so as to set the record straight Doug, I am sorry to tell you but our grandfathers agreed with us. Please tell me that you don’t believe that they fought to disenfranchise their white descendants during WW II. If they were here, they’d be manning the Kinist shield-wall beside us, and against you. Have you forgotten it is our Fathers who are quoted ad-nauseum in agreement with us in Achord and Dow’s book on this subject?

Given that you misunderstand that Doug you might want to consider growing a brain.

Doug writes,

“The third string are those who take the natural affection for their own people—that no sensible man ever doubted was a good thing—hook it up to a bicycle pump, and inflate it to cringe levels. You know, bracing for the pop. They talk much about love and soil and affection and heritage, but their chief characteristic is a crackling envy aimed at anybody who is smarter, wealthier, has a better looking wife, is more influential, or is better connected than they are. And after just a couple of days marinating in that attitude, they start talking ominously about the Jews.”
Bret reponds,

1.) Doug is calling Kinists the “third string.” A question here Doug … “If Kinists are the third string why are you finding it such a hard time, despite column after column, in snuffing them out?” If you can’t easily defeat the third stringers Doug what are you going to do when the varsity shows up?

2.) It only looks like we are inflating it to cringe levels to those who have spent their first 69 years living as cucks being forced to forget their heritage, or worse yet having to be ashamed of it with the rise of WOKE.

3.) Well, Doug certainly is smarter than me and definitely is more wealthy than me. Doug is well beyond me in being influential and in being better connected. It’s not possible for him or anyone to have a better looking wife, so I suppose that alone explains why I am not at all envious of Doug. Doug tends to think that anyone who would dare disagree with him must be envious of him.

Really … it just couldn’t be the case that anyone might be based not because they are full of envy and/or racial vainglory but rather people are based because their disagreement w/ Doug proves simpliciter that they are full of raging envy.

4.) Doug … Babe … Dude … they’ve been talking ominously about the Jews since November 9, 694, (and before) when the Seventeenth Council of Toledo had a few non-envious words to say about the Jews.

Tell me again Doug … how many Christian nations have the Jews been thrown out of? Were they thrown out every time simply because the Christian nations were envious?

Doug writes,

“And so, to all those in the ranks of the kinists who really were motivated by nothing more than your God-given natural affection . . . you are being snookered. The only thing you are demonstrating is how gullible a certain brand of white people can be.”

Bret responds,

Doug will not tolerate anyone snookering anybody unless it is Doug who is doing the snookering.

Keep in mind that Doug’s love affair with Pale Ale Federal Vision makes him the King of gullible.

Doug writes,

Doug Wilson writes,

“When I think that my skin tone largely matches that of Neil Armstrong and Ted Bundy, I am in equal measure both proud and ashamed. I just don’t know which way to look.”

Bret responds,

More disingenuousness from Doug.

Does he really think Western Civilization could have been built if Ted Bundys were just as prevalent vis-a-vis Neil Armstrongs?

Damn though, the man is clever and slippery at the same time. One has to be at the top of their game to see through all the poop that Wilson throws against the wall.

Next Doug complains about people passing around bootleg copies of Luther’s famous book on the Jews. I wonder if Wilson could tell us just exactly where Luther got it wrong?

Doug writes,

“In short, through excessive worry about any reasonable Christians ever arguing for anything distinctively Christian in the civic realm, because it reminds them of things said in Elijah One Tooth’s newsletter, such policing Christians fussing about tone and trajectory create a situation that results in the only real alternative to the current secular madness being composed entirely of cranks.”

Bret responds,

This paragraph proves that Doug’s desire is to man the right side of the Left. He tees this up by saying he is building a community that is outside of “progressive-ville” while avoiding the swamps where the “Elijah One tooth” Kinists live. Doug is unwilling to live as far left as the progressives live but he’ll be damned if he gets near the Kinists. Doug desires to live in “The Right.side.of.the.left-burgh.” It is merely coincidence that Doug gets better reviews from the “Progressive-ville Times” than he does from the “Elijah One Tooth” Tribune.

Doug writes,

“The result of all this is that cowed and kennel-fed Christians labor to ensure that there will never be a serious biblical challenge mounted against the rogues, mountebanks, and miscreants who make up the current city council of Acceptable Discourse. “If you move in that direction, people will think that ‘Christian nationalism’ is simply code for white supremacist. Simply shouldn’t be done. Dog whistle for raaaaaaacism. Far too risky.”

 

“Who might think that?” I wonder. “And do I have any respect for their opinions on any other matter? I mean, at all? Why should I care about the opinion of a group that has royally discredited itself in pretty much every way?” In short, I would invite all my readers to consider the fact that this is my “not caring” face.”
Bret responds,

Here we see it proven that Wilson is trying to create a position that is not possible to create. Wilson is trying to find a Nationalism that is contrary to both WOKE and Kinist. Wilson thinks that he can create a mediating position that is neither WOKE nor Kinist while at the same time thinking he can attack both positions from his mythical town — Unicorn-ville. Wilson fails to realize that it is the Kinists who have found the mediating position between the Bolshevik WOKies and the dwelling place of the Christless Goose-Steppers.

And the sad thing is that Wilson is going to attract people to what amounts to a CREC Hoover-ville.

Ohh… and for the record Doug … I thought that was your “RBF.”

Doug writes,

“In short, through excessive worry about any reasonable Christians ever arguing for anything distinctively Christian in the civic realm, because it reminds them of things said in Elijah One Tooth’s newsletter, such policing Christians fussing about tone and trajectory create a situation that results in the only real alternative to the current secular madness being composed entirely of cranks.”

Bret responds,

Hey, Doug, you mean like all those cranks quoted in Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow 650 page book on this subject? You know men like Vos, the Hodges, Kuyper, McCartney, John Edwards Rice, Dagg, Dabney, Thornwell, etc. etc. etc.

It’s gotta be a burden Doug to have to denounce all these cranks.

Oh and Doug, I’d love for you to give us a book review on Dow & Achord.

Wilson ends his screed by demonstrating that the core of the man is pure pragmatism. He argues that it doesn’t matter how conclusions are arrived at so long they are the conclusions we desire. If it is acceptable to hold hands with Thomists and Natural Law theorists since they are coming to the same conclusion that Wilson desires then holding hands shall be done.

So, Wilson as a pragmatist will hold hands with the Thomists with what they both agree on but Wilson’s pragmatism only goes so far and as a matter of principle he will not have anything to do with the “Elijah One-Tooths” in the Kinist camp who desires the same thing he desires and that is the rescue of Western Civilization.

What is your standard for Pragmatism Pope Doug?

There is no better way to end this than by quoting Stephen Wolfe from his “The Case For Christian Nationalism,” since what Wolfe identifies is exactly what we are getting from the most Rev. Doug Wilson;

“But when evangelicals write against “racists” or “xenophobes” they go in with all guns blazing, lacking any sense of empathy, understanding, or even rational consideration of arguments. In every case, the manner they go about addressing some topic is determined by ruling class sentiment towards that topic. This is true even when we address fellow Christians. Thus, “good faith” discussions between Christians about same-sex attraction look very different than the unequivocal denunciation of anything with a semblance of “Kinism.” Evangelicals are rhetorically enslaved to the sentiments of coastal elites, even when they are not being addressed. These elites are the Big Brother always watching and judging in the shadows”.

You Might Be A Member Of The CREC…

You might belong to the CREC if

10.) Every MLK B.Day you watch again MLK’s I have a dream speech
9.) You still hate Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Jesse Helms for all the “damage” they did
8.) You have dreams of Doug Wilson wearing his white zuchetto
7.) You sing songs on Sunday that somebody who didn’t understand congregational singing wrote
6.) You can’t distinguish between Kinism and Christian Identity
5.) You keep saying race doesn’t exist and then turn around and talk about the sin of racial malice and vainglory.
4.) You’re constantly chattering about “all my black friends.”
3.) It’s ok for your to refer to “Chocolate Knox” but racial malice for a kinist to quote another black man referring to Obama as “the Magic Negro.”
2.) You think that you prove your “Far Right” credentials by reading the Wall Street Journal as opposed to the New York Times.
1.) You don’t realize that your denomination allows for the teaching of Justification by works.

1.) Just the mention of the name Steven Sitler makes you cranky
2.) You think that plagiarism is only a problem that Doug’s co-authors struggle with
3.) Your Pastor wears a collar daily with a different pastel colored shirt
4.) You don’t think that wrong views of communion are that big of a deal
5.) You constantly defend yourself with “Well, my church is a lot better than the PCA, OPC, RPCNA, URC, etc.” not realizing that is a pretty low bar.
6.) You gnash your teeth every time someone points our Romans 9:3 or Titus 1:12
7.) You know all the lyrics from the latest Snoop Dog album
8.) You think “racism” (whatever it might be) is the worst sin in the bible
9.) You have children named Zebulon, Zipporah, Zephaniah or Ezekiel
10.) You think the only qualification a woman needs to write a book is that she is a CREC pastor’s wife or daughter

Ben Shapiro Has Advice For How “Christian Nationalism” Should Roll

“This is why when people on the right use the phrase Christian nationalism, people on the left hear, ‘ah, we’re talking about religious fascism.’ Well, no, when people say Christian nationalism typically what they mean is not that the official church of the United States should be the Catholic Church, or that the church of the United States should dictate terms of service in the United States. What it means instead, when people say Christian nationalism is that undergirding the values of the United States are a set of Judeo-Christian values, and when you jettison those values you destroy the United States.”

Ben Shapiro
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/09/30/ben_shapiro_when_people_say_christian_nationalism_they_are_talking_about_judeo-christian_values.html

1.) I agree that Christian Nationalists are not and should not be looking for an official Church of these united States. In my estimation Christian Nationalists should be looking that the nation should swear allegiance to Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and then be ruled consistent with His Law-Word. We should be done with the dishonoring pluralism that allows false gods to populate God’s land (“The earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”– Psalm 24:1) with the result of the war of all against all. There is no social order harmony where there are gods owned by the social order who grossly contradict one another in their salvation, character and ethic.

2.) Remember, all Nations are headed by some God or God-concept.  Our nation bows the knee to the god of pluralism and that god is ultimately controlled by the FEDS since it is the FEDS who have the final word as to how far any of the gods and/or all of the gods can walk in the public square. The Mormon God says “polygamy” but the FEDS say “no polygamy.” The Christian GOD says “no sodomy” but the FEDS say “sodomy.” The native American God says “smoke peyote as a religious rite” but the FEDS say “no smoking peyote as a religious rite.” The Muslim God says “Sharia Law” the FEDS say “no Sharia law.” You see, in our Pluralism the FEDS are serving as the God over the gods. We are as a religious people, with a religious State, as you can find anywhere else. It just so happens that our God is Pluralism and the God who is pluralism is controlled by the FEDS. So, naturally if the State is going to be religious (and all States are) Christians should desire a Christian Nationalism where the State bows to the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Scripture. If the State is always hopelessly religious (and it always is) than why should Christians be satisfied with anything but Christian Nationalism (they shouldn’t)?

3.) The idea of “Judeo-Christian” values has been a mistake from when it began. We are a Christian people with Christian values. Not a Jewish people. Keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Shapiro speaks of slams together on one hand the ultimate value of worshiping Jesus from the Christian side while on the other hand the ultimate estimation of the Judeo part of the equation is to affirm that Jesus is burning in hell in excrement for all of eternity. How does one arrive at “Judeo-Christian” values given that reality. No, the values we need are not “Judeo-Christian” but just plain Christian values.

So, by all means a return to Christian Nationalism. A return to the time where nearly all of our State Constitutions had language of loyalty to the Christian God as stated in the documents themselves as requirements for service in the State governments.

4.) I would contend that it is precisely because we have embraced “Judeo-Christian” values we have destroyed these united States.

Ben Shapiro writes again,

Again, I think it’s bad branding because I think it’s exclusive in a way it doesn’t need to be. Specifically because, even if you’re not religious, you can agree with the basic idea, even from a natural law (understanding). I mean, this is Catholic Church doctrine. You don’t have to be Catholic to believe that natural law actually undergirds the idea of family, undergirds the idea of God as an important part of public life. You don’t have to be some sort of crazed conservative nut to believe a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters. All of these things matter.

Bret responds,

Of course Ben thinks Christian Nationalism is exclusive. It is exclusive and would read out of the movement those who want to continue to embrace the pluralism that comes with the embrace of “liberal democracy.” Liberal Democracy, which Ben supports and which has brought us to the place we are now at cannot be embraced in order to cure what ails us. It is what ails us.

And natural law? In this postmodern climate which classical liberalism has achieved there is no putting the toothpaste of natural law back in the tube to serve as a guide to our social order. Natural law is dead and the only thing that could bring it back to be a governing reality is brute force.

I also disagree with Ben about his “crazed conservative nut” part. I do think in our current climate that many people believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that “a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.” For pete’s sake we have scads of people now all around us who believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that there are only two genders and that race is not a merely social construct. If they can think that how much easier is it for them to think that only crazed conservative nuts believe that a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.”

No, Ben. Neither Natural Law nor shared Judeo-Christian values are going to save us now.

The Libertarianism of the Tuttle Twins Put On Display and Slain — A Presuppositional Reading of “Fate of the Future”

Just finished reading “Tuttle Twins: The Fate of the Future,” to two of my Grandsons.

The Tuttle Twins are becoming increasingly popular among Biblical Christian homeschoolers. All I can say after reading my first Tuttle Twins book is that parents better be ruddy well careful. This volume is toxic.

1.) It reduces ultra Libertarian Murray Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State” to a child’s level.

2.) On the first two pages you find pictures of different races of peoples in a kind of multicultural setting.

3.) A quote from the book;

“Over time, these societies have created cultures — different foods, clothes, music, language, and religions.”

The problem with the above quote is that it is false that societies create cultures and it is false that societies create religions. In point of fact, it is Religion and People groups (as theology is poured over ethnicity) that create religions and then the culture that flowers is but the outward manifestation of a people’s religion and ethnicity. This Tuttle Twins book as it backwards. Culture is always downstream of religion. Sans the Tuttle Twin religion is NOT downstream of culture.

4.) Another quote from the book lifted from Rothbard

“The state is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.”

Certainly, this is likely true of any non-Christian state. However, this would not be how a Christian would define a state in a Godly Christian order. In a Christian order the state is not necessarily negative. In a Christian order the state is the means by which God brings order into a designed and very limited jurisdiction in concert with other governments in other jurisdictions in the same society. The Libertarian definition above of the State casts the State in a purely negative sense and pushes the reader (remember) towards a anarcho-capitalist type of position.

5.) Another quote;

“Most people in charge of the State want to do good things and help people — they’re not trying to be bad like gangsters.”

If the last quote above was overly negative in defining the State this quote is downright Pollyanna laughable. No child in any Christian home should be taught that kind of tripe. Children need to be told that the current State and the people in charge of the current State want to do harm and hazard to the American citizen and that the current people in charge of the State make gangsters look like Boy Scouts.

6.) Another quote;

“But these governments tend to always expand their power. Instead of just protecting the people, they begin controlling them and limiting what they can do.”

I thoroughly agree that it is a significant injurious problem that governments tend to always expand their power. However, the problem in the quote above arises with the intimation that it is always wrong for “governments to control and limit the population in what they can do.” The presupposition undergirding this statement is that the individual is sovereign and should not be controlled or limited in any way. Biblical governments, for example, should control and limit the population in what they can do if the population desires to do those things that are contrary to God’s Law Word. For the Libertarian authors of the Tuttle Twins the individual is sovereign. For the Biblical Christian God’s Law-Word is sovereign and because it is sovereign the government may well have to control and limit the population in what they can do.

7.) Another quote;

“Chief Ron says it’s never okay to use force in aggression, only in defense.”

This is the Libertarian cornerstone maxim called “the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).” Of course it is utter nonsense. There are times when using force in aggression is required by God in his assignment to the government. For example, a Godly government would use force in aggression to put pornographers out of business. For example, a Godly government would use force in aggression against those who provide abortion.

The NAP prevents rectification of past crimes or injustices, so long as the original criminal has transferred the proceeds of his iniquity to someone else. In such cases those who have profited by ill-gotten booty can not have aggression visited upon them because their gain did not occur as a result of their aggression.

8.) Another Quote

“We’re people with rights just like them.”

Space does not allow to go into the details of all that is wrong with the “human rights” language. For our purposes here the Biblical Christian is more comfortable talking about the rights that arise out of and are a consequence of human duties laid upon us by the God of the Bible. Technically speaking, only God has right. People have duties. If we want to speak of “human rights” we better be very exacting in tracing those rights back to the authority of God’s word while at the same time demonstrating how if men will do their duty unto God the proper human rights will be the consequence.

9.) Another quote;

“‘The state is one type of government — but in society there are other types (of government) that don’t use coercion’, Mrs. Tuttle added. ‘Our family even has a a government.'”

Though it is not said explicitly the intimation here seems to be that the family is a government that doesn’t use coercion. A Biblical Christian still believes that the rod of correction is a proper instrument for parents. However, it is altogether believable to me that some true blue Libertarians would say parents using coercion are in error.

10.) Another quote;

“But ideally the government would persuade you to do business with them Rather than bullying people, they would have to be very nice and fair, just like the businesses we shop at every day. They would do their best to serve their customers.”

Here we see blatant in your face humanism. Notice the God of this system is the demands and desires of the customers. The customers and their demands and desires becomes the norm that norms all norms. However, what if the customer wants those things that God’s Law disallows? Should the government be very nice and fair and provide the customer those things? For the twins in the Tuttle home it is the desire of the consumer that is the lodestone by which all is governed. This is just humanism.

11.) Another quote:

“You know, there’s a name for this concept … it’s called polycentric law — when two or more governments compete in the same jurisdiction.”

If the previous quote was humanism on display this quote advocates polytheism. Keep in mind that law is always a reflection of some God or god concept. If there are many law centers in one social order that can only be as a result of many gods in one social order. Polycentric law requires polytheism. And for Libertarianism the god behind the different gods of polytheism would be the consumers (see #10 above) who choose which law (and so God) they prefer. There would be as many law systems and gods in one social order as there are consumers who prefer to be ruled by these differing polycentric law systems and polytheistic gods.